My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 121411
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 121411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
2/2/2012 11:28:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/14/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />already existing seven-foot tall fence. He indicated that Mr. Pretzel co-applied for a <br />7.3-foot tall fence on his side property line and paid for half of its cost. He stated that he <br />could not understand why he should cut down his 6.8-foot tall fence that is installed on <br />his own property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin asked Mr. Deike why the approved six-foot six-inch tall fence was <br />not built in 1998. <br /> <br />Mr. Deike replied that he did not want to be responsible for the maintenance of the mow <br />strip as conditioned by staff. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin inquired if the seven-foot tall fence was built without a permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Deike said yes, because it was required since he has a pool. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired whose fence was on the far left of the picture. <br /> <br />Mr. Deike replied that it is the fence between Mr. <br /> <br />Dottie Fink, neighbor, stated that she is the original owner of her property and has had <br />no problem with the fence until Mr. Deike moved in and wanted to build a seven-foot tall <br />fence. She indicated that in 1998, the fence was approved for a little over six feet but <br />not for seven feet. She added that when three panels of the side yard fence between <br />Mr. fell, they remained without a fence for a long time even <br />though Mr. Deike had a pool. She stated that Mr. Deike eventually put up a fence, and <br />she agreed to pay for half of the cost of the fence. <br /> <br />Ms. Fink stated that she has a six-foot tall backyard fence, 16 linear feet of which she <br />shares with Mr. Pretzel. She indicated that she does not want anything done to that <br />portion of her fence and that Mr. Pretzel should have the same fencing height across his <br />back yard. She noted that she was surprised that the Zoning Administrator approved a <br />seven-foot tall fence for Mr. Deike. She added that privacy is not an issue as all the <br />houses in the area are two stories and one can look outside a second-story window into <br />cannot look over a six-foot tall <br />fence and, therefore, a seven-foot tall fence does not make a difference. <br /> <br />Referring to a picture of the neighborhood fencing, Commissioner Blank asked Ms. Fink <br />if the fence is six-foot tall on her side and if the fence to the left perpendicular to her <br />fence is seven feet. <br /> <br />Ms. Fink answered yes to both questions. <br /> <br />Robert Baker, neighbor, distributed a photo similar to what had been provided the <br />Commission. He stated that he is the owner-operator of Amador Pool Service and <br />performs pool inspections and repairs. He provided a copy of a report of an inspection <br />he did for a Pleasanton residence and referred to a highlighted paragraph on page 2 of <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2011 Page 13 of 22 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.